Do people actually believe celebs like sarah Silverman will actually pay 60% of the millions they make?

Learn us wrote:

Bourgie Nights wrote:

I hate to be that guy, but you are not using the term "bourgeois" correctly. It is kind of a pet peeve because my sister does it a lot, despite me correcting her on it...

So teach us!!!

Bourgeois simply means "middle class" and it can also mean the largest class (in terms of census), which is also typically the economic middle class.

I wasn't trying to be mean to the OP, I was just pointing out that somewhere along the way in the past ten years or so, people have started to use bourgeois in a manner that implies wealth and fame and high livin', when in fact it means nearly the opposite.

In a lot of cultures, the middle class hold the majority of the country's wealth. So, I think that might be were the confusion comes in... Not that a single person was wealthy, but that in total the combined wealth of the middle class was the largest share of the nation's wealth. It is changing though. In the United States, the middle class now make up about 50% of our total population, but we no longer hold the majority of the country's wealth. Interesting things to look into if you're in to that kind of thing.

Bourgie Nights wrote:

Pander festival wrote:

Does anyone think Sarah Silverman, Rosario Dawson, Katie Perry, and the other bourgeois folks want to turn over 50-60% of their extremely high incomes to the government?

I hate to be that guy, but you are not using the term "bourgeois" correctly. It is kind of a pet peeve because my sister does it a lot, despite me correcting her on it...

I literally think that I'm using it right.

I paid 36% of my total income in taxes last year and make way

Pander festival wrote:

Does anyone think Sarah Silverman, Rosario Dawson, Katie Perry, and the other bourgeois folks want to turn over 50-60% of their extremely high incomes to the government?

Or do they just advocate for these things, knowing that they've already got an army of lawyers and accountants to work around the rules?

I'm legitimately curious what people think.

You sound not that bright.

Its not so much a matter of finding a good tax lawyer. Its more about having a critical mass of wealth where they can hire a business manager. A competent, reliable business manager can then take on the task of taking income, putting it into a business, generating expenses against that income and creating an asset. Income is taxed, wealth is not. It becomes perpetually deferred income. I've heard it said that deferring income is 90% of tax planning.

Sarah's a s hot JAp

Manchester Nah

Palocanastra wrote:

get surs wrote:

This is BS. Less rich people can hire people to find exemptions and deductions too. Or they can do it themselves. The tax code is written in English. Anyone saying otherwise is lazy and or ignorant.

So are those that decline to read all 74,000 pages of the US tax code lazy?

Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem. I left my post in the quote so you can reread it and try again. I didn't say lazy. I said lazy or ignorant.

You have demonstrated yourself to be the ignorant type. The relevant parts of the tax laws are not 74,000 pages long. Further, there are a variety of web services, internet resources, and middle class tax specialists that will shortcut you to the relevant and useful parts.

HardLoper wrote:

uhmmm... wrote:

Are you a #1 idiot?!

Why would someone pay 60% of tax?

That's what her hero Bernie would have had her pay at least. 53% federal + 14% state (CA) + property taxes etc

State and federal taxes don't add together. You would need to be an idiot to think that. And at least in my state you don't pay property tax on income:)

I don't know about this tax stuff, but I'm damn sure I know I have the hots for Michelle

She's looking good

Pander festival wrote:

Does anyone think Sarah Silverman, Rosario Dawson, Katie Perry, and the other bourgeois folks want to turn over 50-60% of their extremely high incomes to the government?

Or do they just advocate for these things, knowing that they've already got an army of lawyers and accountants to work around the rules?

I'm legitimately curious what people think.

The jewish celebs likely feel that AIPAC etc. will work behind the scenes to figure out something to get them off the hook if all entertainers aren't given some kind of out when it comes to the idiocy their own people come up with to rob and destroy "the other" under the guise of equality. Man oh man do they hate Westerners.

I'm just wondering whether some of the people on this thread have considered that the government's job isn't to take in as much tax revenue as possible.

luv2run wrote:

You really muddied the water.

Buffett pays capital gains taxes; his secretary pays taxes on wages. The US government passed laws that treat the income differently. They both are obeying the law.

Buffett can write a check to the Treasury if it bugs him that much.

You believe that you should be taxed more for money you earn from hard work than money you earn workout listing a finger?

Buffet doesn't want to pay more taxes alone, he wants all rich people to pay more taxes for the massive outsized benefits they reap from US government infrastructure. So STFU with "he can write a check. "

BTW, he has paid next to nothing in capital gains on his personal fortune. He has had it in Berkshire Stock and rarely realizes gains. Then he takes it out and gives it to his kids' foundations and to Bill Gates without paying taxes.

Your post implies one of the great fallacies concerning - that socialists (or those who others would label socialists) can't actually be socialists if they aren't poor. This fallacy is the origin of phrases like "champagne socialist" and "limousine liberal" that are typically used by people who know nothing about socialism or the people (e.g. Sarah Silverman, Katy Perry - you can't even spell their names correctly for god's sake) they're discussing.

uhmmm... wrote:

You sound very knowledgeable.

A question, what's the top bracket tax rate of 2015?

Another one, what % bracket is Trump in and how much did he pay?

BTW, Silverman is my new hero.

39.6% Federal

12.3% California

09.0% Los Angeles city + county tax

___

60.9%

That's on earnings over... can't remember... about $560,000, I think. The rich tend to pay between 15%-23% of AGI. In Trump's case, the bulk of his earnings from real estate probably go into LLCs, corporations, general partnerships, etc., so those earnings wouldn't show up in his AGI (adjusted gross income). His "earnings" are what those entities pay to him in salaries and/or bonuses. Assuming his CPAs and attorneys are not incompetent, his overall tax as a percent of income should be very low. Trump hasn't released his tax returns, so we don't know what he paid.

Everyone who is rich does this, by the way... Clinton, Trump, Gore, Romney, etc. It's legal.

get surs wrote:

GuessCo wrote:

Are we supposed to cry of people have to pay 67% of their annual income in excess of $10 million.

Stop being a house slave defending his master.

Yes, you are supposed to cry for anyone not being treated equally or discriminated against. Not just the people that are like you. Whether they are rich, poor, slave, or slave master.

How brainwashed are you? The rich, the slave master being treated unfairly?

Pander festival wrote:

Bourgie Nights wrote:

I hate to be that guy, but you are not using the term "bourgeois" correctly. It is kind of a pet peeve because my sister does it a lot, despite me correcting her on it...

I literally think that I'm using it right.

Gotta go with the OP on this one. Or at least he's close enough...

"a person whose political, economic, and social opinions are believed to be determined mainly by concern for property values and conventional respectability."

Back to the argument at hand... What I don't like is that the lower capital gains rates are in place so that those of us with a bit of financial discipline and some investing knowledge can become wealthy through a few decades of regular investment contributions.

The Democrats, though, knowing that their voters lack both character traits, will put the lower rate on the chopping block thus denying us normal working folks the surest path to wealth. All in an effort to create more failed Democratic voters.